Allowed

Arvind S/O Kailash v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Jul 2021CRLMB/4184/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, an accused in a case involving murder and affray (Sez. 302 IPC), sought bail. The Court considered the contention that no overt act was assigned to him in the FIR and allowed the bail application by directing the release on furnishing a personal bond of one lakh and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Order allowing bail application; accused to be released on personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each.

Arvind S/O Kailash Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4184/2021

¶3

Arvind S/o Kailash, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Gokulpur, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (Raj.) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Alwar (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, through P.P.

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Complainant(s) : Mr. Praveen Balwada For State : Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶9

Order

¶10

19/07/2021

¶11

Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶12

F.I.R. No.577/2019 was registered at Police Station

¶13

Neemrana, District Bhiwadi (Alwar) for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 450, 307, 302, 323, 341 I.P.C.

¶14

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not named in the FIR. The incident took place on Diwali and the reason for dispute was throwing of fire crackers in the premises of some other persons. It is also contended that the main allegation in the FIR is against Sartaj Singh and Sandeep @ Fakru. Sartaj Singh has also sustained injuries as the dispute later on, turned into a free fight fight between both the groups.

¶15

It is also contended that no overt act is assigned to the

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CRLMB-4184/2021]

¶18

petitioner in the FIR and even in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is contended that in the statement of injured eye-witness, petitioner’s name is appearing for the first time, which was recorded after two days of the incident and the allegation was that one of the co-accused called out name of the petitioner and asked him to sit in the vehicle. It is also contended that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The recovery of vehicle has been effected from co-accused Sartaj Singh and Sandeep @ Fakru. It is also contended that no test identification parade was got conducted. It is further contended that petitioner was granted interim bail and he has appeared before the Investigating Officer. It is contended that co-accused Mukesh Kumar Meena whose bail has been rejected is named in the FIR.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. It is contended by counsel for the complainant that petitioner alongwith other co-accused entered the house of the complainant and caused injury to the deceased as well as three other persons who have been injured in this case. It is also contended that charge-sheet has been filed under Section 299 Cr.P.C. It is further contended co-accused have not been given benefit of bail.

¶20

I have considered the contentions.

¶21

Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioner, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

¶22

This bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he

¶23

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-4184/2021]

¶24

furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter be transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do

¶25

so.

¶26

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶27

CHANDAN /5

Arvind S/O Kailash v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind S/O Kailash v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Musharraf Ali@Musharraf S/O Abdul Rasid Vs State of Rajasthan

Pappu @ Rajveer Son of Shri Mohan Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sneh Kumar Singh S/O Balakram Vs State of Rajasthan

Tinkuram @ Deepu @ Parli @ Chuchiya @ Heera S/O Shri Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Morya S/O Shri Bhairu Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bhola @ Kapoor S/O Puran Vs the State of Rajasthan